asked the Minister for Labour his views on the allegations made concerning irregularities within AnCO, none of which have been denied, which were made at recent hearings of the Employment Appeals Tribunal; if he expects any resignations as a result; if he is contemplating any action; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

15.

asked the Minister for Labour if his attention has been drawn to allegations that AnCO trainees have been required to renovate a flat complex owned by the Director General of AnCO and to undertake work on a holiday home and caravan owned by him; if there is a basis for these allegations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

23.

asked the Minister for Labour the measures which are being taken to ensure that work undertaken by AnCO trainees is used only for the benefit of the community or socially desirable; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 15 and 23 together.

The Deputies will appreciate that the allegations referred to are from newspaper accounts of the opening day of the hearing of a claim for unfair dismissal being made before the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The hearing has been adjourned to 21 December and it could be prejudicial to the case for me to make any comment on the matter at this stage. I do not, therefore, intend to do so.

I am in favour of work by trainees being used for the benefit of the community or local voluntary bodies. The Deputies will be aware of what is being done under the Community Youth Training Programme and I will ask the board of FÁS to see what further assistance can be given.

In relation to Questions Nos. 10 and 15 the Minister has stated that it might be prejudicial to the case for him to make any comments at this stage and that he therefore does not intend to do so. In the circumstances I am not prepared to accept any supplementary questions relating to Questions Nos. 10 and 15.

On a point of order——

If I may——

On a point of order, the Minister referred to the fact that the allegations which are the subject matter of the questions became public during an employment appeal case. The only issue in that employment appeal case is whether the applicant was fairly or unfairly dismissed. What we want to pursue is whether or not other AnCO employees were engaged in conduct of which this House might disapprove. It has nothing to do with the merits of the tribunal case and it could have no influence whatsoever on the conclusions that a tribunal might come to.

Deputy Birmingham must accept the ruling of the Chair.

On a point of order——

Please, Deputy, one moment. The Chair is going to make a ruling here. I said categorically that I am not prepared to accept any supplementaries whatsoever in respect of Nos. 10 and 15 having regard to the Minister's statement in the matter that it could be prejudicial to the interests of individuals outside this House.

On a point of order, can I ask——

Can I ask——

——whether it would be a wiser course of action for the Chair to listen to individual supplementaries and to judge them in order or not, having heard the content of the questions? Has the Chair taken legal advice on this matter as the matter is not sub judice and I believe that the supplementaries that the Deputies in the House will pursue would not pertain to any particular case——

I take the view that since the Minister is not prepared to make any comment, the Chair is not prepared to allow supplementary questions.

Will the Chair listen to supplementaries and then judge them in order or not? Whether the Minister is willing or not to answer the questions in the House is a serious matter but the only question should be whether or not supplementaries are in order. I submit that the Chair would have to listen to the supplementaries to decide that fact.

No——

The Chair knows the question before it has been asked?

I have already ruled on the matter.

This is a very difficult situation.

Deputy Howlin, I have stated categorically in this House that as the Minister, in relation to Questions Nos. 10 and 15 has stated that it may be prejudicial to the case for him to make any comments at this stage and that he therefore does not intend to do so, there is no purpose in continuing as far as I am concerned. In these circumstances I do not consider that supplementaries would be in order lest they would prejudice the case. That is my ruling.

I do not doubt the Chair's wisdom but are we now, by virtue of the Chair's ruling establishing a precedent in this House whereby if any Minister comes in and states in respect of any issue that the reply to a question could be prejudicial to the interests of a person outside this House, not running the risk of creating 15 dummies on this side of the House?

In that situation the Chair, whoever he or she might be, will have to take serious consideration of that aspect of the matter.

With all due respect, if the Chair were to hear the supplementaries as suggested by my colleague, Deputy Howlin——

On a point of order——

——could you not in your wisdom exercise the judgment which is bestowed to you by this House?

I will hear supplementary questions only on Question No. 23.

On a point of order, the issue at stake——

——is one of the most important issues in this House, the availability of Ministers to answer the questions of elected Deputies. A very serious precedent is being established if a statement by a Minister that it may prejudice a case of an individual outside, would preclude any questioning, even the stating of the question in the House. I would ask the Chair to reconsider his ruling.

This is a privileged assembly and the Chair has a particular obligation to see to it that nothing is said or done which would prejudice the interests of persons outside this House.

Deputies are aware of that.

The Chair is standing on that ruling to which his predecessors have always adhered.

On a point of order——

There are too many points of order. Deputy De Rossa, please.

I want to make a point of order.

May I put a supplementary question to the Minister in relation to Question No. 23——

On a point of order, the Deputy is proposing to put a question, but I have a point of order——

I have called the Deputy, he has raised some points of order and I have heard him. I will hear him again if he will resume his seat.

What I wanted to ask the Minister — in relation to Question No. 23 — was what safeguards there are——

The Deputy is quite in order in respect of Question No. 23.

——in relation to ensuring that work undertaken by AnCO trainees is done only for the benefit of the community. What procedures exist now? Does he intend to introduce new guidelines in that regard?

Those supplementaries are quite in order.

There have been a number of changes effected over the past 15 months or so. It is not AnCO policy to have projects carried out by apprentices and trainees on community-orientated jobs and not on some of the others allowable previously under the directives that obtained since 1977. They have now been almost outdated. The council of AnCO have assured me that any project work now undertaken by them must be for the benefit of the community generally and that they must satisfy themselves in this regard.

Arising from the Minister's reply to Question No. 23, would he regard work carried out on the property of senior employees of AnCO as being work which would be for the benefit of the community and socially desirable and what is his attitude to such work being carried out?

Does the Deputy mean now?

Yes.

Under the guidelines laid down by AnCO at present?

Yes.

No, I would not consider such work desirable. That work is not allowable under the present guidelines.

If it happened what would the Minister do about it?

I must now proceed to deal with Questions nominated for priority. Question No. 27 has been disposed of. I am calling Question No. 28.

On a point of order, may I ask you, Sir, if you have come to a decision on my Private Notice Question, that is: To ask the Minister for Education the terms of reference of the proposed general review of primary education, the composition and methods of procedure of the quota review committee announced for the primary sector and if she will give details of the position of primary teachers due to go on the panel while these reviews are proceeding? I placed that Private Notice Question, not asking for the results of the review but seeking the terms of reference and I would like to know your answer.

The Private Notice Question is not deemed to be in order just now, Deputy.

May I confirm my intention of seeking to raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House this evening?

I will communicate with the Deputy.

Is it improper for me to ask you, Sir, why my Private Notice Question is not in order?

Yes, Deputy, it would not be proper. The Chair's ruling on these matters must be accepted.

It is an urgent matter and, I hope, it will be considered for the Adjournment.

As soon as I leave the Chair I will give the matter my attention.